December 16, 2007

I'll write more when I can quote from a transcript, but I wanted to say that I thought Romney was excellent on "Meet the Press" just now. (And so was Tim Russert. Russert rules.)

Romney's voice was much improved over the high-pitched piping I've heard in the debates. Is it the one-on-one setting, the special TV microphones and computer processing, or is someone giving him lessons in how to sound like Ronald Reagan? I was multitasking so most of the time I was listening and not looking, and I thought he sounded really Reaganesque — the tone, the pauses, the personal warmth.

Warmth? From Romney?

I'm not kidding. Russert questioned him about his Mormonism. How could he accept a religion that did not abandon discrimination against black people until he was well into adulthood (age 31)? Romney carefully avoided saying anything negative about Mormons and instead concentrated on his family. His father, George Romney, walked out on the Republican convention in 1964 because of Barry Goldwater's position on civil rights. This chimes nicely with his repeated use of the phrase "faith of my father" or "faith of our fathers" when talking about his religion.

(Like most people, he's in the religion he's in, most likely, because it was his parents' religion. He doesn't come out and say: Oh, come on, don't needle me about the details of Mormonism; I'm just following a family tradition. But I think most of us understand that's how religion works, and that's why we don't bully people about why they believe (or "believe") the various odd doctrines of their sect.)

At this point in his story, he says that he still remembers when he heard that the Mormon church announced that it was abandoning its belief in discrimination. He was driving his car, he says. I am moved to tears. He then says, after I've started to cry, that he pulled over to the side of the road and wept. Now, that was well done. I felt the emotion in the story and cried before he says he cried. I don't normally cry at anything a politician says. I tend to laugh at anything sentimental, especially when it's at all self-aggrandizing. So I'm going to say he showed some fine — Reaganesque — skill.

Russert began the hour by asking Romney about his Mormon speech and focused in particular on the statement that "Freedom requires religion." Romney said a lot of things at this point that were designed to appeal to religious conservatives, but he finally got around to saying atheists and agnostics have their place in America too and that the key is to judge everyone as an individual. In his elaborate response, he kept invoking John Adams and George Washington, and I don't think most listeners understand the classic debate about religion and government that this refers to (which had James Madison and Thomas Jefferson on the other side). So it may have either sounded garbled or impressively grounded in history — perhaps depending on whether you like a good dose of religion in your government. It's the old debate about whether, generally, people need religion to be good citizens. Romney is trying to strongly ground himself in religion, while avoiding saying anything terribly offensive to those who think religion belongs in a separate realm from politics. Some of this felt a little off to me, but I understand what he was trying to do and that it's an immensely difficult task, so I still give him high marks as a candidate (for his party).

On abortion and health care, Romney relied heavily on federalism. He was especially persuasive talking about relying on the states to experiment with different solutions on health insurance. Here, he was able to confirm his belief in the value of the mandatory approach he instituted in Massachusetts, without saying he's ready to impose it nationwide. Conditions in Texas are different, but in the end, he hoped we might learn that what he did in Massachusetts was best. This was nicely moderate.

On abortion, he was clear that he wanted Roe v. Wade overturned, and this says a lot about the kind of Justice he would appoint to the Supreme Court. Russert tormented him with questions about his change of position on abortion, and he clearly conceded that he'd changed. He has a huge problem dealing with this issue, but I thought he handled it well, under tough questioning. I don't agree with him on this issue (as he presents himself now), so I'm only talking about his skill as a candidate here. I think it is very strong.

An excellent performance.

ADDED: Here's the transcript. Here's the key passage with the phrase "faith of my fathers" and the story of his family's commitment to civil rights:

I'm very proud of my faith, and it's the faith of my fathers, and I certainly believe that it is a, a faith--well, it's true and I love my faith. And I'm not going to distance myself in any way from my faith.

What went through his mind here? He's got a commitment not to criticize his church. But he's said enough for it to mean: I have criticisms and I could voice them, but part of my religion is not to voice them. Or part of my political strategy is to behave as if I'm taking the higher ground by leaving my sect uncriticized.

But you can see what I believed and what my family believed by looking at, at our lives. My dad marched with Martin Luther King. My mm [sic] was a tireless crusader for civil rights. You may recall that my dad walked out of the Republican convention in 1964 in San Francisco in part because Barry Goldwater, in his speech, gave my dad the impression that he was someone who was going to be weak on civil rights. So my dad's reputation, my mom's and my own has always been one of reaching out to people and not discriminating based upon race or anything else. And so those are my fundamental core beliefs, and I was anxious to see a change in, in my church.

I can remember when, when I heard about the change being made. I was driving home from, I think, it was law school, but I was driving home, going through the Fresh Pond rotary in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Rotary.

I heard it on the radio, and I pulled over and...

Here's where I am moved to tears.

... and literally wept. Even at this day it's emotional, and so it's very deep and fundamental in my, in my life and my most core beliefs that all people are children of God. My faith has always told me that. My faith has also always told me that, in the eyes of God, every individual was, was merited the, the fullest degree of happiness in the hereafter, and I, and I had no question in my mind that African-Americans and, and blacks generally, would have every right and every benefit in the hereafter that anyone else had and that God is no respecter of persons.

Russert asks a near-perfect follow-up: "But it was wrong for your faith to exclude it for as long as it did." Answer:

I've told you exactly where I stand. My view is that there--there's, there's no discrimination in the eyes of God, and I could not have been more pleased than to see the change that occurred.

122 comments:

"An excellent performance" indeed. And one - as a conservative - depressed the hell out of me. I never realized how "Moderate" Romney is. I shuddered hearing his old comments and his 'explanations'.

He's obviously a Rockefeller Republican in the mold of Bush I. And like Bush I he's trying to fool us by talking conservative in order to hide his establishment moderate beliefs. No wonder Hugh Hewitt loves him!

Worst moment, his statement that he was in independent in the 1980s while Reagan was president.

"He then says, after I've started to cry, that he pulled over to the side of the road and wept."

He was probably crying about how many Blacks & Latinos he was going to have to hire at his Salt Lake City McDonald's and how that would negatively impact his bottom line by chasing away his lily-white Mormon clientele. Would he now be forced to serve Coke and Coffee to the Others? God forbid!

A pertinent question to ask him was what part did he play in the civil rights struggle in this country. No doubt, his answer to that question would have made me cry.

On hears and reacts as one prays to hear and react. Are or were his answers any better than perhaps 100,000 other Americans who keep up with issues?

Does rich equate to leader? I look at the Republic(an) breck girl and he makes me shudder. I also think back to 8th grade when we had debates in speech class and I was infatuated with Laura (last nameless) and so she won because she looked better and didn't stumble on her words. I have no idea what she said.

I'd sooner vote for a Redwood tree..they both stand equally straight and one is taller.

GOV. ROMNEY: I'm very proud of my faith, and it's the faith of my fathers, and I certainly believe that it is a, a faith--well, it's true and I love my faith. And I'm not going to distance myself in any way from my faith. But you can see what I believed and what my family believed by looking at, at our lives. My dad marched with Martin Luther King. My mm was a tireless crusader for civil rights. You may recall that my dad walked out of the Republican convention in 1964 in San Francisco in part because Barry Goldwater, in his speech, gave my dad the impression that he was someone who was going to be weak on civil rights. So my dad's reputation, my mom's and my own has always been one of reaching out to people and not discriminating based upon race or anything else. And so those are my fundamental core beliefs, and I was anxious to see a change in, in my church.

I can remember when, when I heard about the change being made. I was driving home from, I think, it was law school, but I was driving home, going through the Fresh Pond rotary in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I heard it on the radio, and I pulled over and, and literally wept. Even at this day it's emotional, and so it's very deep and fundamental in my, in my life and my most core beliefs that all people are children of God. My faith has always told me that. My faith has also always told me that, in the eyes of God, every individual was, was merited the, the fullest degree of happiness in the hereafter, and I, and I had no question in my mind that African-Americans and, and blacks generally, would have every right and every benefit in the hereafter that anyone else had and that God is no disrespecter of persons.

MR. RUSSERT: But it was wrong for your faith to exclude it for as long as it did.

GOV. ROMNEY: I've told you exactly where I stand. My view is that there--there's, there's no discrimination in the eyes of God, and I could not have been more pleased than to see the change that occurred.

I learned something from Russert's interview that I had not known before: Romney's mother ran for senate in 1970 as a pro-choice Republican. No wonder, then, that he, too, was pro-choice when he ran in 1994. Using Ann's theory about religion and applying it to political doctrines, if we are of a particular religious stripe because our parents were (and we don't change until we have cause to seriously examine our religious beliefs), Romney was pro-choice because his mother was. It was not until he seriously examined that position (when, as Governor, he had to confront the ethical issues surrounding the creation and destruction of human embryos for research purposes) that he changed to a pro-life view.

I'm not suggesting that anyone on this board will now think he got the public policy right. I just think the story of his conversion from pro-choice to pro-life sounds more plausible.

Are you sure that it is hate against gays? Or has the practice of homosexual sex been considered sinful, as it has been and continues to be in any number of religions around the world?

Part of why I suggest the later is that a lot of the Mormon faith seems to revolve around the family, esp. down through the generations, and practicing a gay life style would seem to cut people off from that.

With regard to Romney's reaction to the news that the blacks could receive the priesthood, that too rings true to my ear. I had a similar reaction. At the time, I was serving as a missionary in the city of Quartu on the island of Sardenga (off the coast of Italy). Like Romney, I cried with joy at the news. Since I had been a little child, I'd been taught we did not know why blacks could not receive the priesthood and that some day they would be able to enjoy all the blessings of the church. I was taught to pray for that day to come. So, I was overjoyed with the news. I felt, in some small way, my prayers had be answered.

This is a side issue, but -- is it really true (in the U. S. today) that "most people" are in the religion they're in because it's their parents' religion?

Maybe you can say that broadly (as in, Christians are Christians because their parents are Christian), but I'm not sure you can say that about individual denominations. Only a small minority of my adult friends practice their religion in the same denomination that they were raised in; most, including me, are converts or non-practicing; does anyone know how that goes nationally?

Ann... glad you were generally impressed. We've been working hard to get this guy elected, because he is damned smart and has the potential to be a fine president. My bet is that you will continue to be impressed. Thanks for giving him a fair shake.

I like Romney. I think he aced "the speech" last week. I was also multitasking during Meet the Press, but I think Romney's got skills. He's not my first pick, mind you, but I'll be happy to support him.

Founded in 1854 by anti-slavery expansion activists and modernizers, the Republican Party rose to prominence with the election of Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president. The party presided over the American Civil War and Reconstruction.

Regardless how many blacks want to be Mormon priests, many blacks see a continuity between slavery, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and their present-day circumstances, so "slavery" isn't some distant, dusty event for them. It's all "oppression" and the oppression ain't over yet.

Mitt Romeny's statement addresses more than the priesthood in his religion. It addresses the popular conception that Mormonism includes as a central pillar the belief that black skin is a curse indicating God's hatred of those who turned their back on Him. Mitt Romeny repudiated that so soundly in this interview that if he is the Republican candidate you may have the first Republican candidate in decades that African-Americans voters do not suspect is privately a racist. Which is the main reason conservative blacks don't vote for Republicans. Ever since the Dixiecrats flipped over to the Republican Party, the black vote has been parked in the Democratic lot. In terms of making a play for the black vote in the general, Romney's little teary-eyed manuever here was fucking brilliant.

Let me first say that my Mother and my son both became LDS converts. At my son's invitation, I was in church with him the morning the 1978 change was announced. The entire congregation broke out in cheers, so to the commenter who thinks Mormons wanted to ride the neighborhoods in hoods and burn crosses or keep the McDonalds lily white is just nuts. This was a change that was much welcomed.

The LDS church is very international, especially because the leaders, as young college age sophomores, fulfill their missions worldwide and gain much from their experiences. It is like having the majority of members with a Peace Corps background. And their programs to help and support Native Americans and those of Island and Hispanic descent go back to the very beginnings of the Church.

As to his early pro-choice views, most of us in Romney's age bracket who were already married and having children paid little attention to Roe when it was first passed. It was not an issue that affected our lives so we did not see the ultimate dangers. I didn't have my own epiphany on abortion until my daughter was a teenager and we attended a film depicting the baby in the womb and what an actual abortion was all about. We never saw what was coming, with abortion becoming a birth control method, with over 40+ million babies being killed, with the fact it would become a litmus test politically or that it would become a choice for married women who didn't want stretch marks or the inconvenience of one more child. We were brought up on the tales of rusty coat hangers and back room mutilations as if the few thousand this actually happened to is worse than killing over 40 million.

I do not know why it is so questioned that because someone changed their position after absorbing the true facts about genocide should be castigated for finally getting the full and false picture that was painted in the '70s.

And to the person who implied Romney was dumb, you must not be aware that you don't graduate from Harvard cum laude and with honors with a double degree of Business and a JD. The one thing Romney isn't is dumb. And what he did with the turn around with the Salt Lake Olympics was nothing short of a miracle. The man is smart, he is a leader, and he is one of the best qualified candidates we've seen in a very long time.

Mormons do not "hate" gay people, but that does not mean they approve of the gay lifestyle. To hold Mormons to a higher standard for their thinking on subjects which have put them smack in the mainstream thru the years is totally unfair. Most every religion has believed or still believes that being homosexual is an offense against God. And I've not heard of Mormons demonstrating at military funerals and demonstrating against gays, like the Baptists, a la Fred Phelps. And I seriously doubt that any Mormon would tell a woman who just lost her brother to a painful death by cancer that it was her fault (at the funeral), because he was eaten up alive by the knowledge that his sister was going to suffer the tortures of hell because she joined the LDS church. Love those self-proclaimed Christians. NOT.

And rcocean, how do you think Reagan got elected if not for those of us who were registered Independents? I was then, I am now, yet I worked in both the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations and have voted Republican in every election since my first in 1968.

[Evelyn starts to cry] Jimmy Dugan: Are you crying? Are you crying? ARE YOU CRYING? There's no crying! THERE'S NO CRYING IN BASEBALL! Doris Murphy: Why don't you give her a break, Jimmy... Jimmy Dugan: Oh, you zip it, Doris! Rogers Hornsby was my manager, and he called me a talking pile of pigshit. And that was when my parents drove all the way down from Michigan to see me play the game. And did I cry? Evelyn Gardner: No, no, no. Jimmy Dugan: NO. NO. And do you know why? Evelyn Gardner: No... Jimmy Dugan: Because there's no crying in baseball. THERE'S NO CRYING IN BASEBALL! No cryingEvelyn Gardner: Well I just saw Rosie O'Donnell naked.Jimmy Dugan: Well OK, carry on then.(A Leauge of Their Own, 1992)

David Walser said..."[Perhaps] Romney was pro-choice because his mother was. It was not until he seriously examined that position (when, as Governor, he had to confront the ethical issues surrounding the creation and destruction of human embryos for research purposes) that he changed to a pro-life view. ... I just think the story of his conversion from pro-choice to pro-life sounds more plausible."

I think that's probably right, and I continue to think Katie Favazza hit the nail on the head months ago when she pointed out that we want people to change their minds about abortion, we want people to come over to our side, and no one doubts that a convert can be as much a believer as someone brought up in it, so it really comes down to the fact that people doubt the sincerity of Romney's conversion. And that issue was addressed in a post linked to by a comment left on Ann's post the other day.

Romney is going to be the candidate because the Republican elites have decided, with the same toxic level of cynicism that enabled them to get behind Bush, to unite behind Romney as the empty suit candidate they can control like a puppet.

He's merely the heir to George Allen, who would have been the annointed Republican empty suit candidate had not the whole macaca thing intervened.

Mitt Romney: The Official Chauncy Gardiner Candidate of the Republican Party.

Who didn't believe I cried when I said I cried? Look, I think it's pretty dumb to cry at that, and I'm being self-effacing admitting it. I'm not proud of it. The fact is, I'm brutally honest on this blog when I say how I feel. It's part of my blogging style. I don't blog all my emotions, but when I chose to reveal something emotional, it's true and it's not done to preen in any way. It's done because I think it works as a way to understand something.

I thought Romney did well. His answers didn't surprize me and his positions are the norm for politics. It is worthwhile to consider the context while Romney governed.

What works in one state, or time, isn't possible in other states or times. Far too many variables exist. On major issues a stand can be taken but on other minor issues you have to compromise if you want to get anything done. Reagan compromised by having similar JFK policies, Clinton adopted Reganite priciples as well that were politcally expedient and different than typical democratic economic approaches. What works in New York, Arizona, Florida or Massachusetts varies. A Governor, or President for that matter doesn't possess the type of power needed to be idealogically consistent, even if that would be his or her preference, on every single issue. In theory, or at school, or on TV this appears to possible. Reality is far different.

For instance, consider some of Romney's accomplishments. Romney started and lead Bain Capital for the better part of two decades with returns of up to 173%, in some years. Obviously, Romney has gifts that are far above the norm. Can anyone think of a candidate in recent history with credentials that even start to approach what Romney has accomplished? He would be the envy of Wall Street and widely celebrated. Yet, what is he typically asked about?

For example, if Romney started to go into great detail on certain issues he would lose over 90 percent of the audience who don't have the background or experience to understand what he is proposing. This isn't meant to be condescending, yet many of his answers have several layers and levels. Typcially, these types of answers do not appeal to the intellectually uncurious. You have to research what he says at times.

For example, his speech on religious liberty was packed with indepth insights, however one needed a background into the history of the constitution and the varying views of the time, reagrding religious liberty, to fully grasp what he was saying. What he said sailed over many erudite media types. A politician, however, has to strike a balance. He can't appeal to everyone on every issue.

"Asking a candidate what they did about an issue which was largely resolved by the time he was old enough to vote and ought by now to be the province of history books is certainly a useful approach."

Oh blow it out your rear end Simple Simon. Another of your gaseous contributions to Global Warming that you arrogantly, foolishly don't believe in. Blacks don't vote for Republicans and we all know why. Romney only cares about rich white men like you do. Mormonism is a sexist religion as well. What has Romney ever done to help women. He was born early enough to do something for them. Simon = Hot air windbag!

P.S. All Mitt's father holding hands with MLK means is that he was gay.

Trumpit said..."Oh blow it out your rear end Simple Simon. Another of your gaseous contributions to Global Warming that you arrogantly, foolishly don't believe in...."

Trumpit, like Doyle (and perhaps like Garage Mahal, although s/he was a latercomer), you have no credibility to raise global warming as an issue here after you all fled tail-betweixt-legs from the caning you got on this subject earlier this week. When you have some answer to two very simple questions -- (1) If rising carbon dioxide concentrations are the sole or primary driver of temperature rises, why do they lag rather than lead those changes, and (2) what compelling rationale can you offer for why it was worth the difference in carbon footprints between appearing by video link vs. flying a return transatlantic flight for Gore to accept his awards in person? -- then you might regain some credibility to engage on this topic. That doesn't mean you have to have an answer that I agree with, but it does require a valid answer, and you've so far shown no indication that you have any.

I know I missed the boat, so to speak, but I wanted to reply to a rhhardin's 12:51 comment way back upthread.

Having Wittgenstein comment on faith and the Gospels is a little like asking an old Diesel-engine designer to suggest the best views from a cruise ship. Asking Derrida about prayer, etc., is a little like asking the cruise line's IT guy the same question.

And Romney commenting on faith and religion is like a smooth-talking VP from the same cruise line chatting you up about how wonderful their cruises are, and how much everyone enjoys them, and, even if you've never been on a cruise or wanted to, you've gotta admit that they are a great thing to do.

Pretty soon you'll be thinking about going to the Bahamas, despite all those times you've been seasick.

The worst domestic dreams are dreams where you did something wrong. I suppose actually it doesn't matter if you hear about those or not, except as to the amount of dread induced. But this is not domestic. Forget I mentioned it.

"Fred Thompson did say, at the last debate, that Mitt is becoming a finer actor than he."

That is not the only aspect in which Romney is finer than Thompson.

These two guys are my #1 and #2, but Romney just stands head and shoulders above the rest. The guy is razor sharp, he's thorough, he's prepared, he places high expectations on others and delegates responsibility, and he knows how to organize. The quintessential executive.

He's absolutely right for the White House. In fact, given our free-spending and inefficient ways in DC, the idea of turning loose a venture capitalist on the whole charade sounds about perfect.

This man should be our next President. I have no doubts he's our strongest candidate, our best leader, and the best hope at implementing the conservative agenda.

I hear the empty suit comments, and I find them wholly moronic. Sorry, I judge a man by what he has accomplished in life. And with Romney, more than any other candidate, I see a path of consistent accomplishment through wit, hard work, discipline, and delegation. Those are the marks of a leader. The rest is just window dressing.

Pal2Pal said: "We were brought up on the tales of rusty coat hangers and back room mutilations as if the few thousand this actually happened to is worse than killing over 40 million."

This is a pretty remarkable statement. First off, are numbers of lives the only way to compare what's worse? (Applying this to Iraqi civilian vs. U.S. civilians may lead to some interesting conclusions.) Is it possible to compare the suffering of dying from a botched abortion to millions of embryos being aborted? I honestly don't know where you would start. Plus how do you compare embryos to fully formed humans?

I tend to believe the law should allow abortion so that each individual can weigh the decision very carefully. I don't think any woman would make that decision lightly.

It is an oversimplified and naive analysis to casually say that 40 million embryos being aborted is worse than the death and suffering of a few thousand women.

As for Romney, he'd be a lot better than Bush because Romney appears to be at least competent when he takes something on.

Well, Certaotherium, as a Massachusetts resident, I hate to rain on your parade, but I am not as enthused.

Romney may well be all those things you mentioned, but from where I sit he is also something else: an uninspiring opportunist.

It was obvious from day one that Romney was using the governorship of Massachusetts as a launching pad, either to get in the Senate, finally, or, as it's turned out, to run for president.

I was a big Bill Weld fan, but I really, really didn't like the way he grew bored with the job, especially after his failed Senate bid. I know, he had other personal problems, but we elected him to serve as governor, not lobby to be ambassador to Mexico. Is the governorship of Massachusetts so small-potatoes that no one wants to do it for its own sake?

Everyone knew Romney would pull the stunt he did: Parachute in, establish his bona fides, and drop Massachusetts like a hot rock when his chance came 'round. It's a tribute to the miserable candidates the Democrats put up that they couldn't keep this stiff out of the Corner Office.

I will tell you something else: Romney IS a stiff. I have seen him in action in person. He may have done well with Tim Russert, but from what I've seen, he is not fast on his feet or flexible when things don't go according to the script.

He's smart, and not a bad guy. I just fail to see any of that "leadership" that people keep telling us he possesses. And I sure a hell want the next president to be something other than a Boomer venture capitalist, no matter how wonderful he's been in the boardroom.

Clang!Honk!Tweet!, one of our regular commenters at SF is a liberal resident of Mass. who's been sounding the alarm (from his perspective) that Romney's actually a conservative posing as a moderate; could I tempt you to stop by and comment on his comment here?

Are you for real? Romney got prison-raped during this interview. Romney reacting Russert's quote on immigration "... you are a careful reader." i.e. "why do you have to be so focussed on the facts? Don't my feelings matter?" What an idiot. I can't believe how spineless this guy is! He can't even give a clear answer to why there are illegal immigrants doing his yard work.

jeweejewish said..."Well, if you're right, then she's a hilariously sentimental idiot with the overwraught emotional responses of a teenage girl."

I think she's someone who's moved by strong emotions, and isn't afraid to be honest about it. Personally, I like that, and while I can imagine it may not be to some people's tastes, I'm at a loss to see how a criticism can possibly be molded from such clay.

I think she's someone who's moved by strong emotions, and isn't afraid to be honest about it. Personally, I like that, and while I can imagine it may not be to some people's tastes, I'm at a loss to see how a criticism can possibly be molded from such clay.

She claimed to have been moved to tears by something a transparent phoney said for transparent political advantage in a transparently bogus format -- Meet the Press -- where if a genuine emotion was ever on display it would die of loneliness.

Either Ann is just making the whole thing up or she's a basically nutty emotional basket case. Either way, it's hard to take her seriously on the issues -- as usual.

(Reholsters] Travis Bickle: You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Then who the hell else are you talking... you talking to me? Well I'm the only one here. Who the fuck do you think you're talking to? Oh yeah? OK. [Draws] (Taxi Driver, 1976)

"To me, there are three things we all should do every day. We should do this every day of our lives. Number one is laugh. You should laugh every day. Number two is think. You should spend some time in thought. And Number three is, you should have your emotions moved to tears, could be happiness or joy. But think about it. If you laugh, you think, and you cry, that's a full day. That's a heck of a day. You do that seven days a week, you're going to have something special."

You should also poop. It's a fact. If you poop everyday you will be a happier person. That's what every happy baby does. He laughs, thinks, cries and poops. A poop a day keeps the blues away. Did you know that Robert Johnson was very constipated

We're not talking about freeing slaves, we're talking about Blacks being Mormon Priests.

How blacks want to be Mormons, let alone Mormon priests? I think its low on their list.

Its very low on everybody's list, right below Gays wanting to join the Military.

True, but the Romney haters (and the Republican haters, daddy hating gays, White hating blacks, etc) don't care about care about any of this they just use it to fuel their built in resentments. It's an addiction.

Meanwhile nobody is supposed to make an issue of Obama's African father's Muslim beliefs or the fact that Muslims were owning slaves all over East Africa throughout the 19th century up to today. Or that as an adult Obama joined an overtly black racist church run by the "Afrocentric" wingnut Jeremiah Wright.

It's interesting how left liberal White folks can hate Mormonism one minute, criticizing it as a backward, sexist cult and the next minute hate it for not allowing black priests.

If Mormonism is so bad wouldn't you want blacks to be excluded from such a corrupt, misguided religion.

I would vote for Romney. I wouldn't vote for Guiliani because he's not in control of his character, or for McCain because McCain-Feingold is either very stupid or very cynical, or for Huckabee because he's a lightweight, or for the television guy because he hasn't demonstrated much executive force.

I do think Romney is moderate, more interested in consensus than principle on all sorts of issues that will drive true believers nuts. Including me from time to time.

Mormons have been warned very explicitly by their leadership that hating gays has no place in a Christian approach to the issue, though they do disagree with the political agenda of some homosexual activists.

The slippery slope has a radius of 360 degrees. Like Romney I have vacillated on many issues. Look what's happening in China re abortion and say it can't happen here. When the murder rate is low and getting lower, I don't think capital punishment is a big issue. When the murder rate is high and getting higher, bring back the tumbrels. Romney seems decent and smart. If he has been on both side of many issues, well, so have most people. Sometimes he seems slick, but the anecdote about pulling over to the side of the road seemed genuine and moving.

I think she's someone who's moved by strong emotions, and isn't afraid to be honest about it.

Pride and Prejudice :

``I would wish not to be hasty in censuring any one ; but I always speak as I think.''

``I know you do ; and it is that which make the wonder. With your good sense, to be so honestly blind to the follies and nonsense of others! Affectation of candour is common enough -- one meets it everywhere. But to be candid of without affectation or design -- to take the good of everyone's character and make it still better, and say nothing of the bad -- belongs to you alone. And so you like this man's sisters, do you? Their manners are not equal to his.''

Popeye: [singing]I yam what I yam and I yam what I yam that I yam And I got a lotta muscle and I only gots one eyeAnd I'll never hurt nobodys and I'll never tell a lie Top to me bottom and me bottom to me top That's the way it is 'til the day that I drop, what am I? I yam what I yam. (Popeye, 1980)

EnigmaticCore: It's unclear whether the Turing-Test-failing bot you're talking about is the same entity as the C-word.

This place has been remarkably free from obvious trolls for a week or two, and some of the best discussions ever have taken place, I think, as a result. There have a number of really good threads with spirited debates from a variety of perspectives, all unpoisoned by the L-word and others of its ilk.

Anyone can accuse me of being soft-headed, but knowing what I know about Mormonism, race relations and faith in general, I, too, got a lump in my throat when Romney said that.

But what would a Turing-Test failing shell script know of faith and American life as it's really lived?

For any who do not believe that Romney could change his pro-choice views to pro-life, I refer you to Dr. Laura. I was listening to her one day when she stated that she had been staunchly and vocally pro-choice for years, and advocated that viewpoint whenever the opportunity arose. Then one day, while she was on the air, it hit her like a brick what she had been advocating. She related that she suddenly realized that she had been wrong. She said she was wrong, and has been pro-life ever since. I believe her. And I believe Romney.

MathMom said..."For any who do not believe that Romney could change his pro-choice views to pro-life, I refer you to Dr. Laura."

I don't think anyone doubts that Romney could have changed his mind. That's a red herring. The concern that people have (and I'm not speaking for myself here, please don't misunderstand) is whether he DID sincerely change his mind, because the change happened at a time when it was arguably politically convenient.

George - ah, I see. Well, look, I like Fred well enough, he just doesn't seem to have stood out in the way that we'd all hoped he would. He hasn't really demonstrated that he can win next fall, and that's a concern; you could have the promise of being the second coming of Washington, but if you can't inspire confidence that you can beat Hillary, surely you're done in this race? I see things that might make life with Hillary as President a little less unbearable for me than for others, but nothing that doesn't make me fairly certain I want a candidate who can defeat her.

Right now, I am looking for an Obama/ Romney race. Last time around, we had two Yalies from the same eating club. This time around, we can have dueling Harvard JDs.

That actually would be a pretty good race. Two tall thin guys. Romney a bit smarter and accomplished, but Obama having more charisma. And before that is undervalued, historically, the candidate whom people like better tends to win. You would probably have to go back to maybe Carter to find the exception to that. And, to me, Obama is by far the most likable candidate in this election cycle. I can't help but like the guy, even though I disagree with most of his political positions. So, I think that could be a good, close, race. And, even though Romney would get my vote, I wouldn't be upset if Obama were to win, even though I know I should.

Romneys speech on religion was quite thoughtful, unexpectedly deep in touching on the religious basis of laws and values that non-religious are surprised stemmed from religious theology.I've read it a few times. I think it was President-worthy.I want a President who can think long and hard on something, and not operate shallowly and hope for the "killer sound-bite". Romney comes across very well in interviews when he is not limited to 30 seconds - when he doesn't have to regurgitate a canned talking point, or throw out scripted sound bites to see if the media fish will bite on his lures vs. the competitor who "wins the debate instead" because his writers came up with "I was tied up in the 60s".

Russert's hour, while wasted IMO on the never-ending dreck of religion and values already beaten to death, again showed Romney is good when he can talk at length. Romney is very, very good with command of facts and very articulate and able to listen well and formulate good responses.

I want to see the rest of the primary election season leave all the religious crap behind. All the Republicans will appoint strict constructionist judges, and will oppose cloning. Just as all the Dem frontrunners want more judges like Ruth Ginsburg.

As long as the Republican winner does not wish to impose theocracy on us or do another Terri Schiavo Fiasco, I'm good.

Pity Russert wouldn't lead the pack into the post-religion part of the contest and have devoted the whole hour to having Romney explain what he thought the big problems are after some pretty bad decisions by both Clinton and Bush, and how he would turn them around.

Or start to inform voters. What languages to do speak Gov Romney? What foreign countries are you familiar with? What areas do you think you need to learn more about. How will you select advisors that address your foreign knowledge and experience gaps? List your foreign policy priorities. Do you favor greatly expanding America's soft power with communicationa and a bigger State Dept?What has Bush messed up? What will you do differently if made President?What was the hardest decision you made in a business turnaround? As Gov? As a private individual? What will you do to end the era of poisoned partisanship?

Would you appoint Dems to your administration? Which Dems do you admire.

Questions like that. I'm all Jesus'd out.

********************And it would be in Republican interests to narrow their field down sooner rather than later. There are too many, and the Republican debates have been very unsatisfactory because of too many people competing for too little time.

Simon - Bruce, I refuse to believe that enough people are taken in by Obama's bullshit schtick to actually nominate him.

The Dems problem is they have a very weak field with their frontrunners. No executive experience. No military experience. And very little difference between Edwards, Obama, and Hillary in terms of experience in a heads up matchup, unless you swallow Hillary's claim that she was the secret Co-Gov, Co-President while refusing to show documentation she was in the rooms where Clinton's major decisions were made and on all the policy memos routing slips.

Obama's bullshit may just well fly considering how lame the resumes of his two main rivals are. There are no Gephardts, Gov Deans, VPs like Gore, or longtime Senators with military command experience this time.

jeweejewish said...""Seriously -- Obama's more full of shit than who?"

That any other candidate in this election, including Joe Biden, for reasons I've written about numerous times (start here and here). As to Huckabee, I think I've made my opinion quite clear about him. If he's the nominee, I will quite seriously consider voting for Hillary.

jeweejewish said... ""Seriously -- Obama's more full of shit than who?"

That any other candidate in this election, including Joe Biden, for reasons I've written about numerous times (start here and here). As to Huckabee, I think I've made my opinion quite clear about him. If he's the nominee, I will quite seriously consider voting for Hillary

Of course, I keep forgetting you're a Tory. We fought a war to throw you assholes out of here, and I'm damn sick of being lectured on Americanism by the people who sided with the Crown during the Revolution.

On the basis of your recommendation, I watched and listened to the interview online as I did the dishes left over from a family party tonight, Ann.

Excellent wasn't the word that came to mind.

Instead, it was "smarmy."

That impression was only buttressed by the inconsistencies in which Tim Russert constantly caught Romney.

Smarmy may not be accurate or fair. But Romney always comes across as the guy who will say anything to get you to buy what he's selling, in this case his presidential candidacy.

I liked his dad a lot more. His 1968 candidacy came to grief over the statement made in New Hampshire radio interview that the Johnson Administration tried to brainwash him with regard to Vietnam. The media portrayed George Romney as being brainwashed and thus too weak to serve as president. George wasn't slick enough to fend off those unfair attacks.

But Mitt, in spite of his robotic demeanor, is much more adept at dealing with the media. Maybe, like Bush the Younger, who always appears bent on not repeating his father's mistakes, Romney the Younger is doing the same relative to his dad. But I never felt that George Romney made a mistake in that New Hampshire interview. His so-called mistake was in being honest with the media. I get the feeling watching Mitt that he won't repeat that "mistake."

As I say, it may be unfair. But that's what I feel every time I watch, listen to, or read about Mitt Romney.

Yes. I was looking forward to an Obama/Thompson race, but that prospect has dimmed and seems less exciting now. I agree that Romney and Obama would be interesting, though I'm not certain that Romney is smarter. Older, yes.

perhaps Mitt could list his 5 best black friends. then his 5 best gay friends. i guess if he knows a black gay and they go back farther than the time it took his staff to find one for him, we will see him/her on the podium next week...but don't touch.....oh god, don't touch.

jeweejewish said..."You seem like a nice guy, but you're a psycho. Sorry."

Coming from someone who made the comments you made upthread, that means virtually nothing. Several other Republicans have indicated deep concerns with Huckabee (Jonah Goldberg spoke for many of us in identifying him as a big government conservative and a Larsonite), and I would hardly be the first to consider mutiny. In truth, given the alternative, I imagine I'd get comfortable enough to very reluctantly spport Huckabee, insofar as all he really has to do is convince me that he'll keep a lid on spending and appoint the right kind of judges, but at this point I'm deeply mistrustful of him.

"Of course, I keep forgetting you're a Tory. We fought a war to throw you assholes out of here, and I'm damn sick of being lectured on Americanism by the people who sided with the Crown during the Revolution."

A Tory? That's ludicrous. I wasn't a Tory when I lived in England, and I see no reason to link I'd have been one had I lived on this side of the pond during the revolutionary era.

"Romney may well be all those things you mentioned, but from where I sit he is also something else: an uninspiring opportunist."

As, to some extent, are we all. However, if you want to see the poster child for "opportunist", take a good long look at Mrs. Clinton. On a scale of 1 (least) to 10 (greatest), if Romney were a 6, Hillary! would be a 6,000. She redefines the nastiest aspects of the breed.

Example #847: On September 11 she sat in the Petraeus hearings and called the General a liar to his face, using a carefully chosen phrase to do so. On September 23, on the Russert show, she said she had the highest respect for "Petraeus and the troops", but would not vote for any future funding bills. Friday the spending bill passes the Senate 90-3. Abstaining: Clinton and Obama, who didn't have the balls to vote against it. Those are your courageous, inspiring Dem candidates.

P.Rich: Believe me, I'm making no brief for Mrs. Clinton in that comment you quoted from. I agree that she's the very definition of opportunism.

My basic point was that Romney managed to get elected against a very weak Democrat (I mean, Shannon O'Brien, the very model of a State House hackette?), and used the governorship to posture and preen for a presidential run. He wasn't interested in being governor, just polishing his resume. That looks like rank opportunism to me, and frankly I'm sick of it.

It seems we either get governors who are running for something else, or are second-raters or flat-out incompetents, such as Jane Swift.

Paul Celucci was a tolerable governor, but nobody would accuse him of being a political genius. He was just a solid guy who had been around the block in Mass. politics.

Maybe that's the best we can hope for, which is okay with me. But I really resent some blow-dried character who neither sounds, looks, nor acts like he's from around here, parachuting in and using Massachusetts as a launching pad.

Sorry to appear so parochial, but Massachusetts is not New York, which always seems to have one Senate seat, for example, ready to hire out to the latest carpetbagger. We take our local politics seriously, and in my opinion, Romney has had neither the life-long connection nor paid his political dues sufficiently to have been governor, much less use that office to run for president.

downtownlad said...Mormons hate gay people and think they should be excluded from the Church. Why does Mitt Romney belong to a church that bans gay people? Oh that's rate - because he hates gays.

This is not true. The LDS church does not expel anyone based on their sexual preference. On the other hand, the LDS church believes marriage should be between man and woman, with a goal of having a family. Along with that, the LDS church teaches that any sex outside of marriage (hetero, gay, auto) is wrong.

Lance...probably true that the LDS doesn't cast out gays. What is also probably true is that it doesn't permit them to be members in the first place. The old adage "it isn't easy being a Mormon" is also as true as "it isn't easy getting to be a Mormon".

He hates Gays this year. He would undoubtably cry if his Church accepted gays into the fold as well.. but I don't think they would be tears of joy. I wonder if they were tears f joy for black men and women being allowed to worship under the Mormon faith.

Mitt is the quality of person we always hope will seek the highest offices.

Now you may disagree with him on his policies and may be put off by his personal mannerisms, or jsut like someone more, but to reject romeny because of them is 'straining at a gnat, then swallowing a camel.'